Upload
Login or register
x

heavy

Alut MM. Cmi'
Four new elements have been added to the periodic
table, finally filling out its seventh row, The
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
IUPAC) has announced the changes in a statement
on December 30.
The new kids on the 113, 115. 11?,
and "superhiffy," a label given to elements
with more than 104 protons. Atoms with that many
protons are too unstable to exist in nature because
protons naturally repel one another. The four new
elements therefore don' t exist naturally.
Elements with very high atomic numbers have to be
created by smashing together two smaller atoms in
the hope that some of their protons stick together.
To create 1 1?," Scientific American explains, "the
researchers smashed calcium nuclei (with 20 protons
apiece) into a target of berkelium (9? protons per
atom)." But this is much murderthon it sounds.
Berkelium (named after Berkeley, California) is
extraordinarily rare; it took the team more than two
years to stockpile 13 milligrams of it forthe purpose
of the experiment.
Here' s an artist' s illustration of Element 11?:
Once created, element 117 almost instantaneously
decays and disappears. It has a half life (the amount
of time it takes for half a given amount of the element
to decay) of of a second.
Element 113 - created by bombarding bismuth with
zinc ions - is also fleeting: It decays in less than a
thousandth of a second.
The new elements will be named after a mythological
concept, a mineral, a place or country, a property, or a
scientist, and will be presented for public review for
five months before a final decision about the new
official name and symbol is made
A quick look at the new periodic table:
Schools will need to have new textbooks now.
...
+300
Views: 14161
Favorited: 21
Submitted: 01/05/2016
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to whatdoyawant

Comments(95):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
[ 95 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
81 comments displayed.
#35 - outlandertom (01/06/2016) [-]
>element 115
#85 to #35 - yellowcardraiden (01/06/2016) [-]
GIF
Hyped for more DLC with World at War crew.
User avatar #76 to #35 - hickoryballz (01/06/2016) [-]
The song from Kino Der Toten instantly played in my head when I heard it. I thought no one would make a reference.
#2 - jii (01/05/2016) [-]
why waste money doing this. Why spend billions making 3 atoms of Uuo, when millions are starving. STEM is oversaturated. Get your degree in Communications or Art, and dont have the wool pulled over your eyes
User avatar #68 to #2 - thejusticar (01/06/2016) [-]
you talk about a waste of money then you tell them to get a art degree. 7/10 made me comment.
User avatar #29 to #2 - platinumaltaria ONLINE (01/06/2016) [-]
Appeal to bigger problems ;)

The human race's defining trait is the desire to explore and discover. If you aren't curious then there's nothing that can be done.
#78 to #2 - anon (01/06/2016) [-]
Imagining if they discovered a new orbital in these experiments, many chemists will refer to it as the 'g' orbital--since the s,p,d, and f orbitals have already been discovered and are in the periodic table. The discovery would be ground breaking and possibilities are almost endless
#4 to #2 - anon (01/05/2016) [-]
So you are seriously asking why we invest into science that has the chance of unlucking new future possibilities, instead of throwing money into the mouths of starving people.

There's around 7.3 billion people in this world, we don't need to keep them all alive, let the people who can't provide for themselves or the kids they CHOSE to have, die out.
User avatar #11 to #4 - jii (01/05/2016) [-]
there are brilliant minds among those poor, ya know...
User avatar #55 to #11 - dakkenly (01/06/2016) [-]
Brilliant minds that could discover new elements or work in STEM fields making discoveries

Oh wait
#12 to #11 - anon (01/05/2016) [-]
if they are so smart then they can think a way out of poverty, like getting a job...
#38 to #12 - anon (01/06/2016) [-]
Hahah
hah
Yeah no you need a social network if you want to get a job. Which is hard when you're poor.
User avatar #13 to #12 - jii (01/05/2016) [-]
yup. jobs are totally doled out by merit
User avatar #22 to #13 - mordadigsjalv (01/05/2016) [-]
Is that why you got a degree in art?
#25 to #22 - jii (01/05/2016) [-]
**jii used "*roll picture*"**
**jii rolled image** Masters in electrical engineering from an Ivy League institution. 3.89 GPA. Walmart won't even hire me
User avatar #36 to #25 - chimpaflimp (01/06/2016) [-]
You'll be considered to be 'overqualified' for a job like that. Go real upmarket, like Walgreens or something.
#46 to #25 - turbanmasher (01/06/2016) [-]
I hear ya.
#51 to #2 - anon (01/06/2016) [-]
Humanity is driven by the hunger for knowledge and discovery. If you are to stupid to see the value in that then I just don't want to even talk to you anymore.
You disappoint me
goodbye.
#79 to #2 - razerdude ONLINE (01/06/2016) [-]
User avatar #15 to #2 - drastronomy (01/05/2016) [-]
This is such typical ******** argument
If human lives are more important to you than the advancement of science, sell your pc and do something yourself. You may not want to advance civilization, but the rest of us do.

If we were to priorotise feeding the worlds starving instead of focusing on science, you would soon find you have ended up with more starving people than when you started (due to birthrate **** ) AND with the added bonus of sending the world into an economic darkage because retards like you care more about petty lives than the one thing that matter for humanity - advancing our knowledge about existance and our future. I for one would gladly sacrifice my life it it meant it would advance technology more than i alone have the capacity to throughout my life, yet i would not sacrifice my life to save even a thousand others.
#20 to #15 - elseano (01/05/2016) [-]
don't drag the whole lib thing into this- this is a hippy we should bring this term back, it describes these 'back to nature' ***** greatly and not liberal. a hippy is to a liberal what a redneck is to a conservative.

agree with your point, though
#71 to #15 - doughnutholer (01/06/2016) [-]
Oh yeah tough guy? But what if the thousand others you would have saved are scientists? hehe
#28 to #15 - anon (01/06/2016) [-]
jii is a troll, mr smarty pants
User avatar #16 to #15 - jii (01/05/2016) [-]
weak b8 m8
#17 to #16 - drastronomy (01/05/2016) [-]
Not bait, but a different opinion.
Bet you're not used to those in the liberal socialist circlejerk you seem to have walked right out of
#41 to #15 - anon (01/06/2016) [-]
Birthrate stabilises then declines once mortality goes down. It's why the West has a declining population.
If you'd read up you'd know that, but you're to busy thinking STEM is alpha and omega.

And guess what? More people means more human resources. More potential researchers. Not to mention that we need solutions to hunger if we're ever going to do the entire ******* "spread beyond Earth" thing.
Or even just reducing the resources and space we spend on making food.

You're narrow-sighted.
User avatar #94 to #41 - drastronomy (01/06/2016) [-]
Birthrate stabilizes only through natural progression
that means no foreign aid
Which is the exact opposite of what we are doing
#48 to #2 - originalsss (01/06/2016) [-]
i know you just trying to rustle some jimmies but it gives a chance to post based mom
#50 to #2 - anon (01/06/2016) [-]
Not a waste of money moron. Its being used to make jobs etc. It all circulates. It's not just being burned.
User avatar #54 to #50 - marcuss ONLINE (01/06/2016) [-]
yeah not going to leave ponies there . but that is quite a ******** reason (lets makepoeple run around in circles for heck of it
0
#53 to #50 - marcuss has deleted their comment [-]
#56 to #2 - anon (01/06/2016) [-]
GUYS, HEY GUYS
I THINK THAT MAYBE
JUST MAYBE
SOMEONE WHO SAYS "STEM is overrated. Get your degree in Communications or Art, and don't have the wool pulled over your eyes"

IS PROBABLY TROLLING.
I'M NO EXPERT, BUT MAYBE THAT'S THE CASE.
JUST SAYIN'.
#57 to #2 - doctorprofessornv (01/06/2016) [-]
I almost thought you were just a bleeding-heart fool. But the 'get a communications or art degree' part gave it away.
#19 to #2 - anon (01/05/2016) [-]
Drop everything you have and go help the millions that are starving, unless you don't think it's important compared to you browsing funnyjunk.
#45 - brandinifettucine (01/06/2016) [-]
113, 115, 117, 118
User avatar #23 - regularorange (01/05/2016) [-]
Those elements already stand in my book, with the expected stuff, is this a lie or is there something else?
#43 to #23 - reteip (01/06/2016) [-]
They weren't discovered until recently but the periodic table is organised in such a way that each step you take to the left the atomic number changes by one. The atomic number corresponds to the amount of protons in a nucleus, for example: Hydrogen (H) has one proton and is also the first element in the periodic table if we go one to the left we get Helium (He) which has two protons, after the noble gasses there are no more elements to the left so we have to move down in the periodic table and start againt at Lithium (Li) which has 3 protons, Beryllium (Be) has 4 protons, Boron (B) has 5, Carbon (C) has 6, Nitrogen (N) has 7, Oxygen (O) has 8, Fluor (F) has 9 and Neon (Ne) has 10.
User avatar #91 to #43 - regularorange (01/06/2016) [-]
I know how it works I have the many science class but I'm just a bit surprised that they still didn't name the new atoms
User avatar #92 to #91 - regularorange (01/06/2016) [-]
Anything different I mean
#34 - ColeTheUber (01/06/2016) [-]
You can make superheavy atoms. Just use superglue.
User avatar #7 - nithorry (01/05/2016) [-]
calling these new Elements, is like cutting off the head of a cow and sewing onto a sheep and because the brain was still alive on the new creation for a few seconds it's now a New Species of animal...

I'm no scientist, but this ''discovery'' is a load of BS
User avatar #93 to #7 - medxforme (01/06/2016) [-]
Synthesised elemtns decay by spontaneous fission into two different elements (fission products), that's actually how it is proven that the new element was formed. These fission products are not the same elements that were smashed together. Sometimes there's more than two fission by products
User avatar #9 to #7 - medxforme (01/05/2016) [-]
I'm pretty sure if you cut the head off a cow it dies and if you cut a head off a sheep it dies. It never has a chance to be alive. Yes, these new elements have minuscule half lives but they do exist momentarily.
User avatar #10 to #9 - nithorry (01/05/2016) [-]
Well you could techniqually remove the head and maintain a constand flow of blood to the brain to then re-attach it etc. Or if in some fantacy word there's a prosses/machine that can do it super quick, as even once a head is cut off there's still enough blood in the head to maintain life for a few seconds.

Point i'm trying to make is sticking two seprate things together that can't even sustain for 1sec doesn't make it a new thing in my unimportant opinion.
User avatar #60 to #10 - xtnega (01/06/2016) [-]
A species is defined as an animal that can breed to produce non-sterile offspring. You can't compare creating some sort of chimera to creating elements - they have fundamental differences in how they are defined.
User avatar #21 to #10 - mordadigsjalv (01/05/2016) [-]
www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/292306.php
russian dude volunteers for head transplant
#26 to #7 - captainbalu (01/05/2016) [-]
It shows that these elements can exist and proove a point ergo highly interesting and useful for further studies
User avatar #27 to #7 - TheMather ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-]
By that logic, hydrogen is the only element, as every other element is the result of a fusion chain starting with hydrogen.
User avatar #31 to #7 - platinumaltaria ONLINE (01/06/2016) [-]
All elements are synthesised by fusion of atoms except for hydrogen, the fact that people did the fusing does not matter.
#52 - lankanboy (01/06/2016) [-]
What I Thought of when i read element 117
#69 to #52 - dascruffy (01/06/2016) [-]
What I thought of when I read element 115.
User avatar #63 - manofparody (01/06/2016) [-]
I mean.. Yay, new elements.. But..

It doesn't really do anything, besides quickly dissipate. I was hoping for some kick ass slow-burning fuel, or light emitting substances.
User avatar #66 to #63 - thesovereigngrave (01/06/2016) [-]
Hey, the larger atoms we create the closer we get to finding the island of stability. Assuming it exists of course.
#72 to #66 - sarevok (01/06/2016) [-]
People don't know Chemistry, don't be ridiculous.
User avatar #75 to #66 - Metallicock (01/06/2016) [-]
whats the island of stability?
User avatar #95 to #75 - thesovereigngrave (01/06/2016) [-]
Essentially we've noticed that some of the superheavy elements (the ones with massive nuclei that only last a tiny fraction of a second) don't follow the general trend of decaying faster than the previous element in the periodic table. One explanation is that once we get to large enough elements we'll eventually hit an "island of stability" on the periodic table where we'll have superheavy elements that don't decay in a fraction of a second.

Of course it's only a hypothesis at this point, but if it does exist it'd be amazing.
#73 to #66 - gagnine (01/06/2016) [-]
Island of stability? Like a ton of super-duper heavy elements that are stable and can be controlled and used probably with extreme effects? Cool
#32 - geneticrepo (01/06/2016) [-]
Am i the only one that sitting here wondering why?
(Not because of hippy/liberal/blahblahblah people deserve it more than science ) but from a literal standpoint.

Making element 117 just seems pointless to me. How can you accurately say its a real elememt when it literally disappears as soon as its created?

"No guys, its legit, i made it"
-"prove it"
"Cant, there isnt any more of the base element left in nature"

The **** ? Why deplete what is alrdy so rare just to make it disappear in less than a second?
User avatar #62 to #32 - xtnega (01/06/2016) [-]
Except we know it was created because we can detect things much faster than the pretty slow half-life of 0.02 milliseconds; we can currently measure down to 0.00000000000005 milliseconds (500 zeptoseconds) with current equipment. We are completely able to prove that it existed.
#89 to #62 - geneticrepo (01/06/2016) [-]
Never said we couldnt capture the creation of the element or document. I meant that its going to be pretty hard to collect enough of the base element just to use ALL of it.

And not once did i say we SHOULDNT do any of this. I think its great that we're advancing science. I just think its unreliable since you have to collect such a minute amount of an element at a time.
User avatar #90 to #89 - xtnega (01/06/2016) [-]
Perhaps I misunderstood your conversation - I read it as scientists being unable to confirm the creation of the element, with the whole "I legit made this but I can't prove it" thing.
I don't think you've quite thought through your argument surrounding Berkelium, if there is no natural amount available, and it requires an extreme amount of effort to make an atomic-scale quantity, then what hope could you have of implementing it into something beyond the atomic scale? Atom smashing is probably the only thing it could be used for, and indeed, a quick Google search shows that Berkelium currently has 'no practical application outside of scientific research which is mostly directed at the synthesis of heavier transuranic elements and transactinides.'
And you're putting words in my mouth - I didn't even mention whether we should or shouldn't do this type of research.
User avatar #64 to #32 - thesovereigngrave (01/06/2016) [-]
Well one reason is an attempt to find the "island of stability". Some superheavy elements don't follow the pattern of having a shorter half-life than the previous element, and the "island of stability" is a concept of a point where superheavy elements don't decay in such short periods of time.
User avatar #65 to #64 - thesovereigngrave (01/06/2016) [-]
Also, it doesn't "disappear". It decays into other elements.
#88 to #65 - geneticrepo (01/06/2016) [-]
Element 117 is no longer. That SINGLE element disappears when it decays.

The base element is gone as well. You have no more on hand when youre trying to create 117. 3 years of collecting just to use ALL of the sample you have. Just seems wasteful

I understand the idea of trying to find some unreachable area in elemental science. The process for that one element just seems exhaustive to me.

#49 to #32 - anon (01/06/2016) [-]
>>#47
#1 - wilicious (01/05/2016) [-]
Elements are cool, but schools will hardly "need" new text books
#70 - MoparMan (01/06/2016) [-]
and... what exactly is the ******* point of these useles new "elements"?
User avatar #87 to #70 - fazbearxplain (01/06/2016) [-]
fill in the gaps. prove they exist. prove they can be created. prove these elements have properties. tell us whether **** goes nuts later down the line. informs us that there's no freak point in physics in which these elements stay together for some reason. inform us that these "elements" aren't "elements" but rather they're actual elements lack of " .

Creating these elements serve no practical use, they never could and we knew that, but it fuels the boners of every scientist and increases our understanding of chemistry.
#86 - fazbearxplain (01/06/2016) [-]
schools will need new textbooks?
my chemistry book doesn't even have 116, 114 or 112
User avatar #84 - herecomesjohnny (01/06/2016) [-]
>artist illustration of Element 117
>just a bunch of protons
Don't know what i was expecting.
#82 - Glitched (01/06/2016) [-]
Thanks for the post about something that has been around for years.

Nothing new here.
Op still a fag.
User avatar #80 - itssakamoto (01/06/2016) [-]
Why does my textbook have those for ages?
User avatar #77 - Bouncer (01/06/2016) [-]
I think the coolest thing about this is that the half life for these elements is starting to increase again as the atomic mass increases. Now scientists just need to find the island of nuclear stability for superheavy elements.
User avatar #74 - masonhawke (01/06/2016) [-]
If they decay within a second what use is it to completely change the periodic table for stuff we're never going to use?
User avatar #39 - iliekcereal (01/06/2016) [-]
can anyone explain to me why experimental elements are important? I'm a chem major and I've never understood what the point of creating these is. Not saying we shouldn't do it, just wondering why
#47 to #39 - anon (01/06/2016) [-]
Basically, it's because we can. The human race has made so many technological developments since the industrial revolution that we need to test the boundaries of what we are capable of doing, even if it means creating new building blocks of matter itself. Scientists do these things to achieve.
#59 to #39 - xtnega (01/06/2016) [-]
Currently these extremely short-lived atoms don't really serve a purpose themselves, although they may decay into other elements that are difficult to make otherwise, providing a new reaction path. What's most interesting about these super-heavy elements is that there is a predicted 'island of stability' (pic related), and our experiments with super-heavy atoms might eventually lead to finding new stable elements in this 'island'.
User avatar #81 to #39 - qnamanmanga (01/06/2016) [-]
I'm a chem president. and we must find island of stability before pirated do that.
#33 - anon (01/06/2016) [-]
its useless, and no, shouldnt be put into the periodic table.

Elements in the peridoic table, should be base elements. Elements you create, that have drastically short half life's, dont count. If you set a goal of 1kg of a material before it can be added to the periodic table, then this would never make it.
[ 95 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)